Wall-E Loc: Phoenix, AZ

I wish the Copyright office would move into the 20th century, much less the 21st, by making it more affordable to register digital works. $35 for each registration is ludicrous. And if you register multiple works (images) under one registration, then your allowable statutory damages are diluted by the number in the registration.
And to get Congress to recognize posting to the web as 'publishing'. Which brings protection without prior registration.

That same $35 is what the big studios pay to register a movie or a tv show episode.

Los-Angeles-Shooter Loc: Los Angeles

Allow me to clarify what is basically linguistic vagueness:

At the time of creation, the photo is automatically copyrighted. The creator need do nothing to legally retain copyright and hold all the rights therein.

HOWEVER, as a practical matter, to protect and enforce the copyright, the key is to timely register the image(s) with the copyright office. An unlimited number of unpublished images can be registered in a single registration, for which the cost is $35 or a little more, depending on whether you register online or using paper forms.

The confusion over terms probably results from sloppy language, referring to registration as "copyrighting"...

I hope I have clarified things and not obfuscated them further.

Musket Loc: ArtBallin'

I registered my entire back catalog and register new batches quarterly. $35bux is worth the protections when and IF your images get stolen.

Unless you plan on making money, or make a fair bit selling your works, you may not find any value in registering your snapshops of dogs/kids/birthday cakes with the Government. You already have basic copyright protections the moment the image is created, further registrations is to collect more $$$$Damages$$$$ from theft that would/could have resulted in lost financial gains.

jimmya Loc: Phoenix

Actually your work is copyrighted the instant you shoot it... no need to go any further. Besides if someone were to steal your work and you wanted to go after it, there would be a very long, very expensive legal battle, court time, lawyers and lots of money spent for what?

All of us who've been in the business for a long time don't bother because only the honest guy will be honest.

Good luck

Bill Houghton Loc: New York area

I guess you haven't done anything with the government. First thing you learn is nothing with them is free. Just a clip from one article on copyrighting.

Online Application
Online registration through the electronic Copyright Office
(eCO) is the preferred way to register basic claims for literary
works; visual arts works; performing arts works, including
motion pictures; sound recordings; and single serials. Advan­
tages of online filing include:
• a lowerfiling fee
• the fastest processing time
• online statustracking
• secure payment by credit or debit card, electronic check,
or Copyright Office deposit account
• the ability to upload certain categories of deposits directly
into eCO as electronic filesCopyright Basics · 8
note: You can still register using eCO and save money even if
you will submit a hard-copy deposit, which is required under
the mandatory deposit requirements for certain published
works. The system will prompt you to specify whether you
intend to submit an electronic or a hard-copy deposit, and it
will provide instructions accordingly.
Basic claims include (1) a single work; (2) mul

Wall-E Loc: Phoenix, AZ

SwedeUSA wrote:
BS! I doesn't cost you anything to copyright a photo!



Bill;

Swede is right. You are confusing 'copyright' with the registration of same. 'Copyright' is inherent upon creation. Registration costs money.

SpeedyWilson Loc: Upstate South Carolina

The same government in charge of copyright information will soon be in charge of your health care.

Isn't that reassuring?

UP-2-IT Loc: RED STICK, LA

Not to give you a short answer but use the search feature at the top of the page. This subject has been covered repeatedly many many times.

Los-Angeles-Shooter Loc: Los Angeles

I COMMENT ON THE ABOVE:
It is 100% incorrect that statutory damages are diluted by the number of images in the registration. The fact is that each timely-registered image is eligible for full statutory damages, which can be as high as $150,000 per image.

The last paragraph above is also 100% incorrect. Publishing on the web does not bring the protection that you would get by timely-registration.

Los-Angeles-Shooter Loc: Los Angeles

I TAKE KEYBOARD IN HAND TO CORRECT SOME ERRORS ABOVE:

As to "no need to go further," ... WRONG. The key to protecting and enforcing your copyright is timely registration.

The above is also in error as to the legal process. If the work is timely registered and you are ripped off by the right type of thief, it is often possible to get an attorney to take the case on a contingency basis. Nor are such cases typically very long. Copyright cases often move very quickly and often are promptly settled out of court once the thief releases you are serious, rather than just another chump photographer to be ripped off.

The last paragraph above is also misleading. Many experienced photographers are serious about going after thieves. Griecco, for example, not only has successfully taught numerous hard lessons to numerous thieves, he is active in educating other photographers about their rights.

Wall-E Loc: Phoenix, AZ

That was the information I was given by an IPR attorney regards the statutory damages.

As to posting on the web, that was EXACTLY my point.

If you 'publish' a work, by the standards set forth in the copyright law, then you have the opportunity to POST register the work AFTER an infringement, and still be able to sue for statutory damages. Posting on the web is NOT 'publishing'.

Los-Angeles-Shooter Loc: Los Angeles

The first part, that the statutory damages are diluted by the number of photos in a registration, is flatly wrong. I suspect there was miscommunication and the attorney was referring to registration of a single "collective work" which incorporated numerous copyrightable elements. For example, an anthology of poems might have an issue where you'd be limited to suing for infringement of the single "work" rather than for numerous poems.

The matter of registration after "publishing" is complicated, far too much so to fully discuss here. My own policy and that recommended by most experts is to register BEFORE any publication or distribution, whenever possible.

As to whether distribution on the web constitutes publication, and the ramifications of that question, there seems to be a lot of legal argument. That's why I register BEFORE publication.

Wall-E Loc: Phoenix, AZ

Which is what I said. A 'collection' of multiple, copyrighted, works. Like multiple images.

Register them 'individually' for $35 a pop, then I agree with you.




'Publishing' has a legal definition in the law.
Posting on the web does not fit within that narrow definition.

Los-Angeles-Shooter Loc: Los Angeles

Wall-E is quite the legal Eagle; very few people realize that posting on the web does not necessarily constitute "publication" in the context of copyright law. The copyright office refuses to take a position. My own position is that it depends on the context and purpose of the posting.

Here's an interesting few words from a site with a lot of legal info, which also clarifies the 3-month grace period:

Unfortunately, there is no consensus yet on whether posting a work online qualifies as a legal “publication.” The Copyright Office has refused to offer an opinion. Some people think posting online qualifies as publication because it allows multiple people in multiple locations to view the work at the same time, which is analogous to print publication. Also, in fact your computer technically makes a “copy” of the work when it displays the web page.

Once a work is online, it is very easy for viewers to make printouts of the work, which is also creating a copy. However, the law is clear that unauthorized copying does not count as a legal publication. Therefore, if you post your work with a copyright notice (and, for good measure, a clear statement that it may not be copied without your permission), there’s a good argument that you have not made copies of your work available to the public, and thus your posting is not a legal “publication.”

So in the final analysis, you can decide whether you consider your online posting to be a legal “publication.” The advantage to calling it “published” comes in the registration process.

Normally, if you register your copyright before an infringement happens, that prior registration entitles you to collect statutory damages and your attorneys’ fees. If you wait until after the infringement occurs to register, you don’t qualify for those extra remedies. That makes it harder to go after the infringer (their risk upon being found liable is less, so your bargaining power to stop infringement and get paid for it is less). (See Legalities 1)

However, for published works, there is an exception to this rule. The law provides a 3-month grace period: if you register a published work within 3 months after the date it was published, you would still be entitled to statutory damages and attorneys’ fees even if the infringement happened before you registered.

As we know, works can be copied instantly as soon as they go online. So, it is often more advantageous to register your online works as published works – that way you get the 3-month grace period to register them and still get full protection.


Much of copyright law is straightforward, but this issue of what constitutes publication is not. Now you see why I try to register BEFORE any possible publication, i.e., before the works leave my computer. Or if there is possible publication, then I register within the 3-month window and give the date of "publication" on the registration paperwork.

Jim Peters Loc: Pittsburgh

Look Up Common Law Copyright On the Internet Is Is the Easiest Way To do It.All It will Cost You Is A Postage Stamp.